AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA P106-090 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct comparison between these two cards: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that benchmark, the NVIDIA P106-090 scores 21,304, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The NVIDIA card is ahead by 89.8 percent, a substantial margin that places it nearly twice as fast in compute workloads measured through OpenCL. This is the only shared benchmark in the database, so the head-to-head picture is defined entirely by this single result.

The NVIDIA P106-090 also has two additional benchmarks recorded that the AMD card does not share: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 509 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 18,596. These results cannot be compared directly to the FirePro W4300, since the AMD card has no recorded scores for those tests. However, they provide context for the NVIDIA card's overall standing. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 13,470, which places it at the 54th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The AMD FirePro W4300, with only the OpenCL score recorded, has an average benchmark score of 11,225 and sits at the 50th percentile.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card helps frame these numbers. The NVIDIA P106-090's average score of 13,470 is nearly identical to several nearby competitors. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 averages 13,515, which is 0.3 percent higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7770M averages 13,536, also 0.5 percent higher. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT averages 13,543, again 0.5 percent higher. The AMD Radeon Pro 555 averages 13,407, which is 0.5 percent lower than the P106-090. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning the P106-090 sits in a tightly clustered performance band where small differences separate cards.

The AMD FirePro W4300's nearest rivals tell a similar story. Its average score of 11,225 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, which averages 11,228, a difference of 0 percent. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M averages 11,261, which is 0.3 percent higher. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q both average 11,088, which is 1.2 percent lower than the FirePro W4300. The W4300 therefore sits in its own tight cluster, but that cluster is roughly 2,200 points below the P106-090's cluster. The performance gap between the two cards is far larger than the gaps between each card and its nearest neighbors.

The 89.8 percent delta in OpenCL is worth emphasizing. This is not a marginal win; it is a near-doubling of compute throughput. For any workload that relies heavily on OpenCL, the P106-090 is clearly the stronger option. The fact that the FirePro W4300 has no recorded Vulkan or DX12 scores further limits its measurable competitive position. In the database, the P106-090 wins the only direct head-to-head comparison, and it does so decisively.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA P106-090 wins the only benchmark shared by both cards, and it also holds recorded scores in two additional tests. In OpenCL compute, it is 89.8 percent ahead. In Vulkan, it records 18,596 points, a score that indicates strong graphics API performance, though no direct comparison is possible with the AMD card. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it records 509 points. These three results show a card that performs across multiple modern APIs: OpenCL, Vulkan, and DX12.

The AMD FirePro W4300 has no recorded wins in any benchmark. Its single recorded result is the OpenCL score of 11,225, which is well below the NVIDIA card's OpenCL score. However, the W4300 does have attributes that may matter in specific use cases. It offers four display outputs through 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the P106-090 has no display outputs at all. For any workflow that requires driving multiple monitors, the FirePro W4300 is the only one of the two that can physically do so. The P106-090 is a mining-oriented card with no video outputs, so it cannot be used for display purposes at all.

The FirePro W4300 also consumes less power. Its thermal design power is 50 W, compared to 75 W for the NVIDIA card. It requires no power connectors, while the P106-090 needs a single 6-pin connector. Both cards suggest a 250 W power supply, but the AMD card draws less power overall. For systems with tight power budgets or limited connector availability, the W4300 has an advantage.

The P106-090 wins on raw compute and API support. The FirePro W4300 wins on display connectivity, power draw, and physical footprint. The W4300 is a single-slot card at 171 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the P106-090 is a dual-slot card at 250 mm in length. In compact chassis or multi-GPU configurations where space is constrained, the AMD card is easier to accommodate.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and use different manufacturing processes. The NVIDIA P106-090 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP106 chip fabricated by TSMC on a 16 nm process. The AMD FirePro W4300 uses the older GCN 2.0 architecture, with the Bonaire chip also fabricated by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 16 nm versus 28 nm allows for much higher transistor density. The NVIDIA chip packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a density of 22.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD chip contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, for a density of 13.0 million per square millimeter.

Shading unit counts are identical. Both cards have 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units. The ROP counts differ substantially. The NVIDIA card has 48 ROPs, while the AMD card has only 16. This difference is reflected in pixel throughput. The P106-090 delivers 73.49 GPixel/s, while the W4300 manages only 14.88 GPixel/s. Texture rates also differ: 73.49 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA card versus 44.64 GTexel/s for the AMD card.

Memory configurations differ in capacity, bus width, and bandwidth. The P106-090 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192 bit bus, delivering 192.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has double the memory bandwidth despite having less total memory. The memory clock is also higher on the NVIDIA card: 2002 MHz with 8 Gbps effective data rate, versus 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective on the AMD card.

Compute throughput follows the same pattern. The P106-090 delivers 2.352 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The W4300 delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS, roughly 1.43 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card also has a recorded FP16 figure of 36.74 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the AMD card has no recorded FP16 value. Clock speeds for the NVIDIA card are listed at 1354 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost. The AMD card has no base or boost clock listed in the database.

API support differs in several respects. Both cards support DirectX 12, but the NVIDIA card supports feature level 12_1 while the AMD card supports 12_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card has a newer, higher version of Vulkan support.

The bus interface is a notable difference. The P106-090 uses PCIe 1.0 x1, which is a severely limited interface. The W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which offers substantially more bandwidth for host communication. This is an important distinction for workloads that transfer data between the CPU and GPU frequently. The NVIDIA card's mining-oriented design clearly deprioritized host interface bandwidth.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life. The P106-090 was released on 2017-07-30, while the W4300 was released on 2015-11-30. The AMD card has a listed predecessor, the FirePro Terascale, and a successor, the Radeon Pro GCN. The NVIDIA card has no predecessor or successor listed in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA P106-090 scores 21,304 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The NVIDIA card is 89.8 percent ahead, making it nearly twice as fast in this test.

Q: Can the NVIDIA P106-090 be used for display output?

A: No. The P106-090 has no display outputs. The AMD FirePro W4300 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, so it can drive multiple displays.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has more memory at 4 GB, compared to 3 GB on the NVIDIA P106-090. However, the NVIDIA card has significantly higher bandwidth at 192.2 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, due to its wider 192 bit bus compared to the AMD card's 128 bit bus.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has a thermal design power of 50 W and requires no power connectors. The NVIDIA P106-090 has a thermal design power of 75 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector. Both cards list a suggested power supply rating of 250 W.

Q: What are the physical size differences between the two cards

A: The NVIDIA P106-090 is a dual-slot card measuring 250 mm in length, or 9.8 inches. The AMD FirePro W4300 is a single-slot card measuring 171 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and the same 250 W suggested power supply.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The NVIDIA P106-090 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0 and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the specifications where the two cards differ, based on data in the database.

| Specification | NVIDIA P106-090 | AMD FirePro W4300 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 2.0 |

| Chip | GP106 | Bonaire |

| Generation | Mining GPUs | FirePro GCN (Wx300) |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.0M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1354 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1531 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 2002 MHz, 8 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 3 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 73.49 GPixel/s | 14.88 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 73.49 GTexel/s | 44.64 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.352 TFLOPS | 1,428.5 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 36.74 GFLOPS (1:64) | Not listed |

| TDP | 75 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 1.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 250 mm (9.8 inches) | 171 mm (6.7 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2017-07-30 | 2015-11-30 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Not listed | Radeon Pro GCN |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 21,304 | 11,225 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 13,470 | 11,225 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 54 | 50 |

| Win Count in Head-to-Head | 1 | 0 |